agentleFS
ShiningPlagueShiningPlague/shiningplague-studio/skills/gate-check/SKILL.md

gate-check

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when validating readiness to advance to the next project phase, before major milestones, after completing a full sprint or epic, or when the designer asks 'are we ready to move on?' Spawns all 4 director agents in parallel for independent verdicts. ShiningPlague-adopted: project paths (docs/adr/ + {{GDD_PATH}} + data/_schemas/system_registry.json), review-mode (full/lean/solo) integration.

20 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use soak-test, team-live-ops and 1 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • lilangMaxSkill

    soak-test

    Generate a soak test protocol for extended play sessions. Defines what to observe, measure, and log during long play sessions to surface slow leaks, fatigue effects, and edge cases that only appear after sustained play. Primarily used in Polish and Release phases.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • lilangMaxSkill

    team-live-ops

    Orchestrate the live-ops team for post-launch content planning: coordinates live-ops-designer, economy-designer, analytics-engineer, community-manager, writer, and narrative-director to design and plan a season, event, or live content update.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • +1 more from lilangMax

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 19 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 6

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 6

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    If argument provided: use it as the target phase.

    line 35
  2. Very specific:

    If no argument: read production/stage.txt for current phase, then propose next phase from sequence.

    line 37
  3. Distinctive:

    Read silently before presenting anything:

    line 47
  4. Very specific:

    If mode is solo: skip to Phase 5 (artifact-only check).

    line 75
  5. Very specific:

    If required: true and artifact exists: PASS

    line 108
  6. Very specific:

    If required: true and artifact missing: FAIL (blocker)

    line 109
  7. Very specific:

    If required: false and artifact missing: NOTE (optional)

    line 110
  8. Distinctive:

    All READY + all required artifacts present → eligible for PASS

    line 119
  9. Distinctive:

    If composite verdict is PASS and designer confirms advancement:

    line 152
  10. Very specific:

    Write target phase name to production/stage.txt

    line 153
  11. Distinctive:

    If CONCERNS and designer chooses to accept:

    line 156
  12. Distinctive:

    If FAIL: do NOT update stage.txt.

    line 160

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 19 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Gate Check — Phase Transition Validation

🌱 ShiningPlague-adopted. Originally Donchitos (barebones stub); battle-tested on a shipped Godot project. Upstream was a pointer-only file; the studio version is the full implementation — parallel director dispatch, artifact completeness check, composite verdict, stage.txt write.

Validates project readiness to advance from one phase to the next by spawning 4 director agents in parallel, each reviewing from their domain. Produces a composite PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL verdict.

If an artifact named here is absent: say so plainly in one line, skip that step, and continue. Never invent the file to satisfy a checklist, and never fail a close because an optional artifact was never created.

Phases (from workflow-catalog.yaml)

Concept → Systems Design → Technical Setup → Pre-Production → Production → Polish → Release

Phase 1: Determine Target Phase

If argument provided: use it as the target phase.

If no argument: read production/stage.txt for current phase, then propose next phase from sequence. Confirm with designer.

stage.txt is seeded not-started — that is not a phase, it means no gate has ever passed here. Read it as "current phase: none" and propose concept as the target. This skill's PASS is what writes the first real phase word into the file.


Phase 2: Collect Artifacts

Read silently before presenting anything:

  1. production/stage.txt — current phase
  2. production/review-mode.txt — resolve review mode (full/lean/solo)
  3. docs/gdd/systems-index.md — systems status overview
  4. docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml — requirement coverage
  5. docs/architecture/control-manifest.md — programmer rules compliance
  6. data/_schemas/system_registry.json — authoritative system states
  7. Glob docs/adr/[0-9]*.md — all ADRs and statuses
  8. Glob docs/gdd/*.md + {{GDD_PATH}} — all GDD artifacts
  9. Glob production/sprints/sprint-*.md — sprint artifacts (if any)
  10. Glob production/session-logs/playtest-*.md — playtest notes written by /qa-plan (if any)

Project path adaptations:

  • ADRs at docs/adr/ (docs/architecture/ holds the blueprint + manifest, never ADRs)
  • Master GDD at {{GDD_PATH}} (if not split per-system yet)
  • System status from data/_schemas/system_registry.json (authoritative)
  • Design specs at docs/specs/, plans at docs/plans/

Phase 3: Resolve Review Mode

Read production/review-mode.txt. Apply:

  • full — spawn all 4 director gates (default)
  • lean — spawn PHASE-GATEs only (this IS a phase gate, so all 4 run anyway)
  • solo — skip all gates, just do artifact checks, report directly

If mode is solo: skip to Phase 5 (artifact-only check).


Phase 4: Spawn Director Gates (parallel)

Spawn ALL 4 director agents simultaneously via Agent tool. Issue all calls before waiting for any result.

Reference: .claude/docs/director-gates.md for full gate prompts.

Gate 1: CD-PHASE-GATE (creative-director)

Pass: target phase, all artifact paths, game pillars from {{GDD_PATH}} pillars section, core fantasy. Verdict: READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY

Gate 2: TD-PHASE-GATE (technical-director)

Pass: target phase, architecture doc path (if exists), engine reference, ADR list. Verdict: READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY

Gate 3: PR-PHASE-GATE (producer)

Pass: target phase, sprint/milestone artifacts, team size (solo), blocked story count. Verdict: READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY

Gate 4: AD-PHASE-GATE (art-director)

Pass: target phase, all art/visual artifacts, art bible (if exists). Verdict: READY / CONCERNS / NOT READY


Phase 5: Artifact Completeness Check

Independently of director verdicts, check the target phase's required artifacts from workflow-catalog.yaml:

For each step in target phase:

  • If required: true and artifact exists: PASS
  • If required: true and artifact missing: FAIL (blocker)
  • If required: false and artifact missing: NOTE (optional)

Phase 6: Composite Verdict

Apply escalation rules:

  • Any NOT READY / REJECT from directors → overall FAIL
  • Any CONCERNS from directors → overall CONCERNS
  • All READY + all required artifacts present → eligible for PASS
  • One FAIL artifact check overrides all READY directors → FAIL

Present composite verdict with per-director breakdown:

## Gate Check: [Current Phase] → [Target Phase]

**Composite Verdict: [PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL]**

| Director | Verdict | Key Finding |
|----------|---------|-------------|
| Creative Director | READY | [one-line summary] |
| Technical Director | CONCERNS | [one-line summary] |
| Producer | READY | [one-line summary] |
| Art Director | NOT READY | [one-line summary] |

### Artifact Check
- [x] [required artifact] — present
- [ ] [required artifact] — MISSING (blocker)
- [-] [optional artifact] — not present (advisory)

### Director Concerns (if any)
[Full text of each CONCERNS or NOT READY verdict]

### Recommendation
[Specific next actions to address blockers or concerns]

Phase 7: Write Stage File (if PASS)

If composite verdict is PASS and designer confirms advancement:

  • Write target phase name to production/stage.txt
  • Note: "Phase advanced to [target phase] on [date]"

If CONCERNS and designer chooses to accept:

  • Write target phase name to production/stage.txt
  • Append: "Advanced with accepted concerns on [date]"

If FAIL: do NOT update stage.txt. Surface blockers for resolution.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.